User:Joshua Jonathan/Appreciation

The appreciation is much appreciated. All the best to everyone,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

2012

 * Thanks again! Though I hope I'm not overresponding, when I don't agree with other Wikipedians. I like the differences in opinion, they're stimulating. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Would you like to have a biscuit with the tea? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * certainly Why not -- Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ   18:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)



2013
Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   16:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

2014

 * Thank you! I'm surprised, though; it may not exactly be what you expected. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2014

[Rajiv: Lets discuss the following issue after peole have read Indra's Net because this book is centered on the issue of Vedanta-Yoga unity and a defense of Swami Vivekananda on this controversy.]

Hi Rajiv, I was trying to elaborate on Swami Vivekananda's contributions to yoga in Wikipedia, but I got the following response and my changes got reverted. The id that I use on Wiki is "Manipadmehum". Here is the link to my arguments with the editors of yoga -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoga

I have copied the sections below highlighting in bold and underlining those parts which are plan wrong to an average Hindu / Indian. But this is the line of thinking followed by western scholars in some prominent universities like White, University of california. There is also an embedded pdf in the section which explains the "thesis". It is also the first time I hear about Madame Blavatsky who seem to have influenced modern Hinduism and modern Buddhism. Vivekananda & Early Buddhist Texts Vivekananda is absolutely not a reliable source on Yoga. He was a Hindu nationalist, not a scholar. To insert a text like this has nothing to do with understanding the origins of Yoga, but with promoting Hindu-nationalism, and is plain WP:OR. See White (2011) p.20-21 for an assessment of Vivekananda: "Vivekananda’s rehabilitation of what he termed “rāja yoga” is exemplary, for its motives, its influences, and its content. A shrewd culture broker seeking a way to turn his countrymen away from practices he termed “kitchen religion,” Vivekananda seized upon the symbolic power of yoga as a genuinely Indian, yet non-sectarian, type of applied philosophy that could be wielded as a “unifying sign of the Indian nation . . . not only for national consumption but for consumption by the entire world” (Van der Veer 2001: 73–74). For Vivekananda, rāja yoga, or “classical yoga,” was the science of yoga taught in the Yoga Sūtra, a notion he took from none other than the Theosophist Madame Blavatsky, who had a strong Indian following in the late nineteenth century. Following his success in introducing rāja yoga to western audiences at the 1892 World Parliament of Religions at Chicago, Vivekananda remained in the United States for much of the next decade (he died in 1902), lecturing and writing on the YS. His quite idiosyncratic interpretations of this work were highly congenial to the religiosity of the period, which found expression in India mainly through the rationalist spirituality of Neo-Vedānta. So it was that Vivekananda defined rāja yoga as the supreme contemplative path to selfrealization, in which the self so realized was the supreme self, the absolute brahman or god-self within."

Replies

By RK

[Rajiv: I agree 100% with this post. But what have people done about it since the same issue of wicki was discussed her months ago? Nothing.

Some folks here resolved to gather and DO something. They put up a totally new entry on Rajiv Malhotra. It was deleted in a few days by the gatekeepers citing all sorts of reasons and lack of due process Our side lost stamina.

Because it seemed contrived and not natural from our side the wicki folks toughened their stance against me. Change is supposed to be done gradualy with each change backed by evidence cited in footnotes and links. Hence the half-ass effort by our folks has backfired.

So dont start something amateurish as its better to do nothing if you dont know what you are doing. This is not a game for inexperienced folks with passion/opinions but no competence.

This entity "Joshua Jonathan" is editing anything that touches Hinduism and Buddhism. �I think it is an organization of multiple people and not a single entity. �If it is a single person, he has a full-time job to do this. �Probably a well-funded entity considering how many man-hours it invests editing and enforcing its views. �This entity "Joshua Jonathan" likes anti-Hindu scholars like Martha Nussbaum. �I conjecture that it may �be related to receive patronage of U of Chicago or some other AAR member. �

Just go and take a look at Rajiv Malhotra wiki page and you will see that this entity inserted all kinds of text from references which are anti-RM and some are patently Indian Christian. �In fact, RM's wiki page is dominated by one highly spurious anti-RM reference. �No prizes for guessing - "Joshua Jonathan" is the most active editor of RM wiki page. �Compare that page to those of Wendy Doniger or Martha Nussbaum. �You can see the difference of night and day. �

This entity will out-win you by sheer expense of time. �Wikipedia has been turned into a joke by these characters. �

"Joshua Jonathan" claims to be a Buddhist but do not buy it. �It is on a mission to demolish anything labeled, or even remotely connected with the label, neo-Hinduism. Unless you are willing to spend considerable time waging an intellectual battle, forget it.

By S Well, I have to agree that Vivekananda was not a professionally trained scholar.

Rajiv: Based on whatever your criteria of "professional training" means, nor am I or you

professionaly trained". Nor was Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Aurobindo, or any of our great acharyas. Nor Buddha, etc... Only Wendy Doniger, Witzel, Hawley, and their large lineages would be considered by you as "professionally trained". You have in effect bought into the coloniation of what makes a competent Hindu thinker. You assume that western style system accredition is what makes one trained. Therefore, all yogis in history are in effect rejected by you as none of them from Patanjali on had certification by western style institutions.

Bladesmulti (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Man, I'm really impressed by your courage - courage for possibly attracting the reactions of people who may be distracted by my actions, but also the courage to expose yourself to views that may challenge the worldview you have inherited. And no, I'm not "an organization of multiple people", I'm just a single person with an intense drive to understand this one insight that 'the "I" does not exist.' I do have an academic training (three times, actually), but that hardly makes me more professional than anybody else. I feel flattered that Rajiv (Malhotra) thinks I'm an organisation. Thanks. The best piece of advice I can give "his" people: read those damn books which you hate, so we can discuss them on a par. I'm even very willing to explain what I read in them, what understanding they give me. And a second "piece of advice": cherish the tradition, but seek out what's relevant for today, and what's not. Your worth and self-esteem is not in what "the" tradition says, but what you do with this tradition, and how it can help you to be a fully human being - one who can tolerate ambiguity and uncertainty, and stay close with another human being, especially when they are suffering. Thanks.   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:44, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually that comment about you being an organization of multiple people is not from Rajiv Malhotra, but Rohan Kanji. The formatting here is a bit off.  VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oaky, thanks. Revealing anyway.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Dharmacakra. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

See Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Okay, thanks for responding. I'll take better care in the future. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * For those interested: I won't remove these block-messages. I was blocked, after all; people have a right to know this and read about it.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)





Chocolate, at least once a day, keeps me happy! Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   18:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Do you know anything about this practice? Hafspajen (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I only know about chickens and guinea pigs. They keep pretty nice in line when the food is appearing.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is Zen in the Art of Archery, but using a blowgun, that is something new. Hafspajen (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 'No, thanks, woede of angst Walging, afkeer, weerzin of aversie. Hafspajen (talk) 12:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 05:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Eeeks! Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It appears as the favourite pet of the Red Queen and serves as her champion for the Frabjous Day. When it comes to him confronting Alice, the Jabberwocky quotes "Ah, my old foe. We meet on the battlefield once again." When Alice states that they never met, the Jabberwocky quotes "Not you insignificant bearer. My ancient enemy, the Vorpal One." During the fight against the Jabberwocky, Alice manages to defeat it by using the Vorpal Sword to slice off the Jabberwocky's head causing the White Queen's side to win. The White Queen later uses the Jabberwocky's venom to make a potion that will get Alice home.

Hafspajen (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Donate them to you If you thought about copying it to a Wiki-essay. Hafspajen (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WP:WIKITYPE  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   07:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Brilliant!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hafspajen (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks. This one is really appreciated. It touches on an essential ideal of how I want to be. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations! I saw several examples, where your kindness towards POV-pushing editors, obviously violating WIKIPEDIA policies, transcended my limited horizon. JimRenge (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Monthly?!? Man, what a good care, in these times of crisis and shortages! Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Highly appreciated, since it's a tough area to edit. Thank you very much!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! You're welcome. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ;) Welcome!! TraceyWonder (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I already wanted to give you that earlier, but better late than never. --Calypsomusic (talk) 09:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I'm happy that you appreaciate my efforts, even if I'm also critical of your edits. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - for the Barnstar, and for the good holiday-wishes! Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   16:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar! I'm really happy that my interference is appreciated. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for this Barnstar. I'm really moved that my contributions are being appreciated, not just for the good of India and the need to live together with so many different groups, but also given the resistance those contributions have also met. Thank you, very much! Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   07:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

From Talk:Ego death:

"Dan Merkur notes that the use of LSD in combination with Leary's manual often did not lead to liberating insights, but to horryfying bad trips. It also lead to fatal accidents, which were bagatelized by Alpert."

Almost nobody knows what this word means. This is the ONLY Wikipedia article to use it. There is no online-dictionary definition for it. A Google search produces a very few other pages using the word, but again, no definition. (All false modesty aside, if I don't know an English word, it isn't in common use.) We shouldn't be using language that isn't in Wiktionary, and we definitely shouldn't be using words most people have never encountered in their lives!

Furthermore, the sentence is poorly structured. Even with a more-familiar term in its place, there would still be a simpler and stronger way to say it. The passive voice is often a pretension, and rarely clear. "... which Alpert bagatelized" would be the way to go, if "bagatelized" was a word worth using (which it isn't). "The gun was carried by Frank" is never as good as "Frank carried the gun."

Do feel free to let me know, if you know, what "bagatelized" means. I am certain there's an equally accurate way to say what needs to be said, without resorting to esoteric terms or neologisms.

--Ben Culture 06:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey Ben. It's an mistranslation by me, I'm afraid, of the Dutch "bagatelliseren". Which means "to trivialize", "to belittle". Thanks!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I appreciate it, but really, thank YOU! I now know English is a secondary language for you. I wouldn't have known that if your User Page hadn't said so. I didn't know who put "bagatelized" in the article originally, anyway. I hope you didn't feel insulted by my above comment. I was just frustrated, because I like to think I have a good English vocabulary (if no other languages.) Thank you for clearing this up, and I think you picked a perfectly good substitute, "trivialized", which any English-speaker, native or otherwise, will surely know.
 * You have really contributed a lot to this article! It's an interesting topic, but I don't think I've ever done so many edits to a single article, in such a short span of time. It is better to do a lot of small edits, as you have done, instead of a few big ones. I'm impressed and appreciate your work! Have a great day!
 * →Ben Culture 21:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! See also Bagatelle (music).  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  enjoy the peace of mind

Thank you for quality articles on Buddhism, such as Zhongfeng Mingben, for, for inspiring images and "enjoy the peace of mind", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! What a nice surprise! Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:05, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

From Talk:Subitism:

I confess that my enthusiasm for Wikipedia is waning as a result of finding article after article on aspects of Buddhism that seem more like showpieces for the author's (or authors') esoteric wisdom rather than genuine attempts to reach a general public.

What pleasure then to find this article, which lays out the ideas, follows allied threads in a coherent way, and generally presents comprehensible language rather than arcane terms.

My only suggestion would be to wonder whether the impossible is possible: can the two views (sudden/gradual) be reconciled rather than merely left (as I believe here) alongside one another? At present the "sudden" and "gradual" schools seem incompatible. But I have read elsewhere that in practice, there wasn't this separation: that neither "school" believed in an extreme position and held only loosely to both: the "sudden" school admitted that the ground needed to be prepared, and the "gradual" school admitted that there could be a "moment" of enlightenment (** all my wording **).

Of course the author(s) here cannot propose such a course. Let me see if I can find a reference to this effect. --User IP 24.244.23.226 19:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm...not yet the reference I was looking for but the presentation here covers related ground. Unfortunately, the author seems to have a particular axe to grind (the authenticity of the Northern School) so it isn't as objective as one might wish.--User IP 24.244.23.21 20:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your appreciation! And yes, you've got a point here: in real life the two stand along eacht other, or are actually mixed. "Sudden and gradual" is a wonderfull book on this topic.
 * Actually, the problem may be at the root of Buddhism, as reflected in the difference between dhyana and insight. See Presectarian Buddhism. According to vetter, the core practice of early Buddhism was dhyana; according to Schmithausen, and others, "liberating insight" was a later addition. See Majjhima Nikaya 36: after parcticing dhyana, the Buddha attains three knowledges, the third one being the four noble truths, which shows the path to liberation. On realising what the path is, he is liberated! That's weird, isn't it? Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I'm glad it's being appreciated.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Though, I guess you mean Nirvana (Buddhism)?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * O yes, I meant the Nirvana in Buddhism article. You did a better job than I could have done anyway. :-) Manoguru (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yhanks. I'm really happy that the efforts are appreciated.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm not sure if I'm a good help for your position (what's in a name...) on Malasana. Anyway, I've been typing Sanskrit for the first time in my life. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

2015

 * Wow, great! Ehm... which article?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, uh, this and that, all. Hafspajen (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, that's nice. Thank you! It's a pleasure. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   18:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! "Brilliantly" means you like it, I hope?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Eshwar. Nevertheless, let me use the opportunity to urge you to take serious those people who are concerned about your edits. I also think that your intentions are good, but that the edits themselves are often problematic. I think you're a nice guy, and I'd hate to see you offended by these criticisms. So, myadvice: take them serious, listen to those people, and consider what's best to do. Nobody's perfect; that's a painfull truth, but it applies to everyone. And perfect people don't become wise, I guess; only imperfect people do. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as an example: you thanked me 12 times for my edit at Kashmor Shaivism. How come? I was just going to search for info on "performal intelligence" (I seem to have a discrepancy between cognitive intelligence and performal intelligence); the topic may be of interest to you too. Take care, and all the best,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Bonadea thanks! Highly appreciated! Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep up the good work!

Jayaguru-Shishya thanks! Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   04:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


 * You are a Saint!


 * A saint or a sant? ;)  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? There is no such word in my language :-) - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Got my first SPI today . It is quite satisfying, I have to admit. It calls for a beer! - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree that you earned this. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks John. @Kautilya3: you were accused again? - oh, now I see: you created an SPI against someone else! Quite a list... Did you see this one?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:09, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * NB: see this edit by the editor in question; I think it gives an explanation of his sensitivities. Heavy shit.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

  enjoy the peace of mind

Thank you for quality articles on Buddhism, such as Zhongfeng Mingben, for, for inspiring images and "enjoy the peace of mind", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC) A year ago, you were recipient no. 1021 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Great! That's really nice. Thank you!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much! Now it's time for the fine-tuning.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

2016

 * Kathanar thanks! I don't remember that we interacted before, so it's a pleasant surprise that you found me. Wikipedia is a magical place sometimes, with people keeping eyes on each other without being aware of it. I'm happy that you like my edits. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you! The world needs reconciliation right now. Keep up the good spirit.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

2017

 * Dr.enh: thank you! That's very kind!  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

2018
It all looks much clearer now. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Iṣṭa Devatā thank you! Sincerely appreciated. All the best,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)